Engineering Windows 7 : Test

What we do with a bug report?

e7blog — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:00:00 GMT

This has been a busy couple of days for a few of us on the team as we had a report of a bug in Windows 7. The specifics of the issue are probably not as important as a discussion over how we will manage these types of situations down the road and so it seems like a good time to provide some context and illustrate our process, using this recent example.

This week a report on a blog described a crashing issue in Windows 7. The steps to reproduce the crash were pretty easy (1) run chkdsk /r on a non-system drive then crash after consuming system memory. Because it was easy to “reproduce”, the reports of this issue spread quickly. Subsequent posts and the comments across the posts indicated that the issue seemed to have been reproduced by others—that is the two characteristics of the report were seen (a) consumption of lots of memory and (b) crashing.

Pretty quickly, I started getting a lot of mail personally on the report. Like many of you, the first thing I did was try it out. And as you might imagine I did not reproduce both issues, though I did see the memory usage. I tried it on another machine and saw the same behavior. In both cases the machine functioned normally during and after the chkdsk. As I frequently do, I answered most of the mail I receive and started asking people for steps to reproduce the crash and to share system dump files. The memory usage did not worry me quite as much as the crash. I began having a number of interesting mail threads, but we didn’t have any leads on a repro case nor did we have a crash dump to work with.

Of course I was not the first Microsoft person to see this. The file system team immediately began to look into the issue. They too were unable to reproduce the crash and from their perspective the memory usage was by design and was a specific Windows 7 change for this scenario (the /r flag grabs an exclusive lock and repairs a disk and so our assumption is you’d really like the disk to be fixed before you do more stuff on the machine, an assumption validated by several subsequent third party blog posts on this topic). We cast the net further and continued looking for crash dumps and reports. As described below we have quite a few tools at our disposal.

While we continued to investigate, the mail I was getting was escalating in tone and more importantly one of the people I responded to mentioned our email exchange in a blog post. So in my effort to have a normal email dialog I ended up in the thick of the discussion. As I have done quite routinely during the development of Windows 7, I added a comment on the original blog (and the blog where this particular email friend was commenting) outlining the steps we are taking and the information we knew to date. Interestingly (though not unfortunately) just posting the comment drew even more attention to the issue being raised. I personally love being a member of the broader community and enjoy being a casual contributor even when it seems to cause a bit of a stir.

It is worth just describing the internal process that goes on when we receive a report of a crashing issue. Years ago we had one of two reactions. Either we would just throw up our arms and surrender as we had no hope of finding the bug, or we would drop everything and start putting people on airplanes with terminal debuggers in the hopes of finding a reproducible case. Neither of these is particularly effective and the latter, while very heroic sounding, does not yield results commensurate with effort. Most importantly while there might be a crash, we had no idea if that was the only instance or if lots more people were seeing or would see the crash. We were working without any data to inform our decisions.

With the internet and telemetry built into our products (not just Windows 7) we now have a much clearer view of the overall health of the software. So when we first hear a report of a crash we check to see if we’re seeing the crash happen on the millions of machines that are out there. This helps us in aggregate, but of course does not help us if a crash is one specific configuration. However, a crash that is one specific configuration will still show up if there is any statistically relevant sampling of machines and given the size of the user base this is almost certain to be the case. We’re able to, for example, query the call stacks of all crashes reported to see if a particular program is on the stack.

We have a number of tools at our disposal if we are seeing a crash in telemetry. You might have even seen these at work if you crash. We can increase (with consent) the amount of data asked for. We can put up a knowledge base article as a response to a crash (and you are notified in the Windows 7 Action Center). We can even say “hey call us”. As crazy as that one might sound, sometimes that is what can help. If a crashing issue in an already shipping product suddenly appears then something changed—a new hardware device, new device driver, or other software likely caused the crash to appear far more frequently. Often a simple confirmation of what changed helps us to diagnose the issue. I remember one of the first times we saw this was when one day unexpectedly Word started crashing for people. We hadn’t changed anything. It turned out a new version of a popular add-in released and the crash was happening in the add-in, but of course end-users only saw Word crashing. We quickly put up instructions to remove the add-in while in parallel working with the ISV to push out a fix. This ability to see the changing landscape, diagnose, and respond to a problem has radically changed how we think of issues in the product.

We are constantly investigating both new and frequently occurring issues (including crashes, hangs, device not found, setup failures, potential security issues, and so on). In fact we probably look into on the order of hundreds of issues in any given month as we work with our enterprise and OEM customers (and therefore hardware partners, ISVs, etc.). Often we find that issues are resolved by code changes outside core Windows code (such as with drivers, firmware, or ISV code). This isn’t about dodging responsibility but helping to fix things at the root cause. And we also make many code changes in Windows, which are seen as monthly updates, hotfixes, and then service pack rollups. The vast majority of things we fix are not applicable broadly and hence not released with immediate urgency—if something is ever broadly applicable we will make the call to release it broadly. It is very important for everyone to understand how seriously we take the responsibility of making sure there are no critical issues impacting a broad set of customers, while also balancing the volume of changes we push out broadly.

To be specific about the investigation around the chkdsk utility, let’s look at how we dove into this over the past couple of days. We first looked through our crash telemetry (both at the user level and “blue screen” level) and found no reported crashes of chkdsk. We of course look through our existing reports of issues that came up during the development of Windows 7, but we didn’t see anything at all there. We queried the call stacks of existing reported crashes (of all kinds, since this was reported) and we did not find any crashes with chkdsk.exe running while crashing. We then began automated test runs on a broad set of machines—these ran overnight and continued for 2 days. We also saw reports related to a specific hardware configuration, so we set up over 40 machines based on variants of that chipset, driver, and firmware and ran those tests. We were not hitting any crashes (as mentioned, the memory usage was already understood). Because some were saying the machines were non-responsive we also looked for that in manual tests and didn’t see anything. We also broadened this to request globally to Microsoft folks to try things out (we have quite a few unique configs when you think of all of our offices around the world) and so we had several hundred more test runs going. We also had reports of the crash happening when running without a pagefile—that could be the case, but that would not be an issue with this utility as any program that requests more memory than physically available would cause things to tip over and this configuration is not recommended for general purpose use (and this appears to be the common thread on the small number of non-reproducible crashes). Folks interested might read Mark’s blog on the topic of pagefiles in general. While we did not identify anything of note, that does not rule out the possibility of a problem but at this point the chances of any broad issue are extremely small.

In the meantime, we continue to look through external blogs, forums and other reports of crashes to see if we can identify any reproducible cases of this. While we don’t contact everyone, we do contact people if the forum and report indicate this has a good chance of yield. In all fairness, it probably doesn’t help us when there’s a lot of “smoke” while we’re trying to find the fire. We had a lot of “showstopper” comments piling on but not a lot of additional data including a lack of a reproducible case or a crash dump.

This type of work will continue until we have satisfied ourselves that we have systematically ruled out a crash or defined the circumstances where a crash can happen. Because this is a hardware/software related issue we will also invite input from various IHVs on the topic. In this case, because it is disk related we can’t rule out the possibility that in fact the disk was either failing or about to fail and the excessive use of the disk during a /r repair would in fact generate a failure. And while the code is designed to handle these failures (as you can imagine) there is the possibility that the specific failure is itself not handled well. In fact, in our lab (running tests continuously for a few days) we had one failure in this regard and the crash was in the firmware of the controller for the disk. Obviously we’ll continue to investigate this particular issue.

I did want folks to know just how seriously we take these issues. Sometimes blogs and comments get very excited. When I see something like “showstopper” it gets my attention, but it also doesn’t help us to have a constructive and rational investigation. Large software projects are by nature extremely complex. They often have issues that are dependent on the environment and configuration. And as we know, often as deterministic as software is supposed to be sometimes issues don’t reproduce. We have a pretty clear process on how we investigate reports and we focus on making sure Windows remains healthy even in the face of a changing landscape. With this post, I wanted to offer a view into some specifics but also into the general issue of sounding alarms.

It is always cool to find a bug in software. Whether it is an ATM, movie ticket machine, or Windows we all feel a certain sense of pride in identifying something that doesn’t work like we think it should. Windows is a product of a lot of people, not just those of us at Microsoft. When something isn’t as it should be we work with a broad set of partners to make sure we can effectively work through the issue. I hope folks recognize how serious we take this responsibility as we all know we’re going to keep looking at issues and we will have issues in the future that will require us to change the code to maintain the level of quality we know everyone expects of Windows.

--Steven

Delivering a quality upgrade experience

e7blog — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:00:00 GMT

This is a little bit of a tricky post to write because we’re going to be asking everyone using our Windows 7 Beta to help us out, but doing so is going to take a little time and require a bit of a commitment to helping test the next milestone. This has been a remarkably valuable and beneficial testing cycle for Windows as we have had a tremendous amount of very rigorous testing and usage. We’ve had millions of people install and use the Beta since January and as we’ve talked about, the feedback and telemetry have been of tremendous value as we finalize the product. The effort of Beta testers has contributed immensely to our ability to deliver a high-quality product to hundreds of millions of customers. We continue to follow the plan we have previously outlined and this post is no announcement of any news or change in plans. Since we know many people are running the Beta we want to provide a heads up regarding the behavior of the Release Candidate (RC) as it pertains to upgrades. Of course we are working hard on the RC and following the schedule we have set out for ourselves.

A big part of the beta process is making sure we get as much “real world” coverage of scenarios and experiences as possible and monitor the telemetry of those experience overall. One of the most challenging areas to engineer is the process of upgrading one release of Windows to another. When you think about it, it is the one place where at one time we need to run a ton of code to basically “know” everything about a system before performing the upgrade. During the development of Windows 7 we routinely test hundreds of original OEM images from Windows Vista and upgrade them and then run automated tests validating the upgrade’s success. We also test thousands of applications and many thousands of devices as they too move through the upgrade process.

Many of you installed the Windows 7 beta on a PC running Vista. We received that telemetry and acted on it accordingly. We believe we’ve continued to improve the upgrade experience throughout the release. Similarly, based on our telemetry most of you did clean installations onto new drive partitions. Through this telemetry we learned about the device ecosystem and what drivers were available or missing. We also learned about PC-specific functions that required installing a driver / application (from XP or Vista) to enable support for buttons, connectors, or other hardware components. Together we get great coverage of the setup experience.

We’ve also learned that many of you (millions) are running Windows 7 Beta full time. You’re anxious for a refresh. You’ve installed all your applications. You’ve configured and customized the system. You would love to get the RC and quickly upgrade to it from Beta. The RC, however, is about getting breadth coverage to validate the product in real-world scenarios. As a result, we want to encourage you to revert to a Vista image and upgrade or to do a clean install, rather than upgrade the existing Beta. We know that means reinstalling, recustomizing, reconfiguring, and so on. That is a real pain. The reality is that upgrading from one pre-release build to another is not a scenario we want to focus on because it is not something real-world customers will experience. During development we introduce changes in the product (under the hood) that aren’t always compatible with what we call “build-to-build” upgrade. The supported upgrade scenario is from Windows Vista to Windows 7. Before you go jump to the comment section, we want to say we are going to provide a mechanism for you to use if you absolutely require this upgrade. As an extended member of the development team and a participant in the Beta program that has helped us so much, we want to ask that you experience real-world setup and provide us real-world telemetry.

If you do follow the steps below, you might run across some oddities after upgrade. We experience these internally at Microsoft occasionally but we don’t always track them down and fix them because they take time away from bugs that would not only manifest themselves during this one-time pre-release operation. From time to time we’ve noticed on a few blogs that people are using builds that we have not officially released and complained of “instabilities” after upgrade. Nearly all of these have been these build-to-build issues. We’ve seen people talk about how a messenger client stopped working, a printer or device “disappears”, or start menu shortcuts are duplicated. These are often harmless and worst case often involves reinstalling the software or device.

We’re just trying to be deterministic and engineer the product for the real world. Speaking of the real world, many have asked about upgrading from Windows XP. There's no change here to the plan as has been discussed on many forums. We realized at the start of this project that the “upgrade” from XP would not be an experience we think would yield the best results. There are simply too many changes in how PCs have been configured (applets, hardware support, driver model, etc.) that having all of that support carry forth to Windows 7 would not be nearly as high quality as a clean install. This is something many of you know and already practice. We do provide support for moving files and settings and will prompt at setup time, but applications will need to be reinstalled. We know that for a set of customers this tradeoff seems less than perfect, but we think the upfront time is well worth it.

So when you try to upgrade a pre-RC build you will find that you’re not able to and setup will tell you and you can then exit gracefully. You can install as a clean installation and use the Windows Easy Transfer feature as well (run this from your current installation of course) if you wish to move your accounts, settings, files, and more. To bypass the version check, the instructions below will use a mechanism that is available for enterprise customers (so we are also testing this as well). It is not a simple command line switch. We didn’t make it multi-step on purpose but wanted to stick to using proven, documented and tested mechanisms.

These instructions will be brief. Since everyone reading is a well-versed and experienced beta tester you know ALWAYS BACK UP YOUR MACHINE before running any OS installation and NEVER TEST AN OS ON YOUR ONLY COPY OF ANY DATA. Testing a pre-release product means just that—it is testing and it is pre-release. Even though this is a Release Candidate, we are still testing the product. We have very high confidence but even if an error happens once in 1,000,000 we want to make sure everyone is taking the precautions normal for a pre-release product.

One other related caution is INSTALL ONLY OFFICIALLY RELEASED BUILDS FROM MICROSOFT. It will always be tempting to get the build with the “mod” already done but you really never know what else has been done to the build. There’s a thrill in getting the latest, we know, but that also comes with risks that can’t even be quantified. For the RC we will work to release a hash or some other way to validate the build, but the best way is to always download directly from Microsoft.

Here’s what you can do to bypass the check for pre-release upgrade IF YOU REALLY REALLY NEED TO:

Download the ISO as you did previously and burn the ISO to a DVD.
Copy the whole image to a storage location you wish to run the upgrade from (a bootable flash drive or a directory on any partition on the machine running the pre-release build).
Browse to the sources directory.
Open the file cversion.ini in a text editor like Notepad.
Modify the MinClient build number to a value lower than the down-level build. For example, change 7100 to 7000 (pictured below).
Save the file in place with the same name.
Run setup like you would normally from this modified copy of the image and the version check will be bypassed.

These same steps will be required as we transition from the RC milestone to the RTM milestone.

Again, we know many people (including tens of thousands at Microsoft) are relying on the pre-release builds of Windows 7 for mission critical and daily work, making this step less than convenient. We’re working hard to provide the highest quality release we can and so we’d like to make sure for this final phase of testing we’re supporting the most real world scenarios possible, which incremental build to build upgrades are not. At the same time everyone on the beta has been so great we wanted to make sure we at least offered an opportunity to make your own expert and informed choice about how to handle the upgrade.

We’re always humbled by the excitement around the releases and by the support and enthusiasm from those that choose to run our pre-releases. We’re incredibly appreciative of the time and effort you put into doing so. In return we hope we are providing you with a great release to work with at each stage of the evolution of the product. Our next stop is the RC…see you there!

THANK YOU!

--Windows 7 Team

PS: At Step 1 above many of you are probably thinking, “hey why don’t you just let me mount the ISO and skip the plastic disc”. We’ve heard this feedback and we deserve the feedback. We don’t have this feature in Windows 7 and we should have. So please don’t fill the comments with this request. There are several third party tools for mounting and if you’ve got a Vista image there’s a good chance your PC came with those tools on it.

Application Compatibility Testing -- International

e7blog — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:00:00 GMT

This post continues the discussion of Compatibility testing from our test team. --Steven

In the previous blog post "Application Compatibility Testing for Windows 7" we talked about the importance of Application Compatibility and work we are doing to engineer this in Windows 7. In this post we will examine the challenge that emerges as we consider the world wide audience that Windows serves.

This blog post will cover the following areas:

Overall International App Compatibility Strategy
Approach to International App Compatibility
Application Acquisition
Testing Applications
Measuring our Success
What it means to “Rescue An Application”

For Windows 7 we have made significant investment in application compatibility, ensuring applications that worked on Vista, continue to work on Windows 7 and we’ve also rescued some applications that were broken in Vista to work on Windows 7 (more on that later). As we’ve talked about, there are some applications that are OS version specific by design (utilities, firewalls, security, etc.) and those are not included in this discussion.

Approach

One of the biggest challenges in International Application Compatibility is what applications we test, the scale of testing, and what it means for us to say that an application “works”. For Windows 7 we are testing over 1200 applications across 25 specific markets. We have improved our coverage over Vista by adding over 300 more international applications.

We look at applications in 3 buckets.

Global ISV (GISV) Applications – Localized software sold by major ISVs in several international markets as well as the United States.
Microsoft (MS) Localized Applications – Microsoft software that has been localized for use in other markets other than the United States.
3^rd Party Local Applications – Software where the user interface language is not-English and the application is sold in non-English speaking markets (for example, IchiTaro – Japanese Word Processor, Парус 8 – Russian ERP system,)

Categories 1 & 2 are pretty straightforward. There are a known set of key applications and scenarios used around the world and we must ensure these applications function in Windows 7. Category #3 is where there is some complexity.

The applications list we build for 3^rd Party Local Applications is built using a number of methods. First, we build on the list of applications we have used in previous versions Windows (XP/Vista, etc). If it worked on Vista, it must work on Windows 7.

Next we work with our teams in markets around the world to rank top applications in particular markets. It is amazing to see the diversity in application use around the world. The application testing list is based on a combination of market data where it is available, individual knowledge of markets, culture, revenue, usage and even sometimes just “word on the street”. The cultural knowledge in these markets is probably most critical to our success. For example, casual gaming in Korea is hugely popular and we need to ensure our Windows 7 testing accounts for this.

Our goal in selecting applications is to test as many applications as we can that will expose the most issues across different scenarios and markets.

These scenarios include:

Productivity
Memories (photo editing and sharing apps, etc.)
Graphics
Productivity
Music
Fundamentals (security, data backup, etc.)
TV/Movies

Application Acquisition

Once we build the list of applications we need to test the next process is acquiring them. We acquire applications in a variety of ways but many times we have to buy an application from a retail store just as any end user would. Other methods we use to acquire applications include downloading full featured trial versions, purchasing software, and working with ISVs to acquire their applications to ensure compatibility.

Testing Applications

Testing applications means more than just installing them and making sure they launch. Every application gets a unique test plan written for it to cover as much functionality as we can. We write test cases to cover primary and secondary application functions – for our word processing example this would include opening a file, typing a letter, adjusting formatting, save, and print, emailing a copy to someone, etc. These applications go through 6 or more test passes during the product cycle.

Now, we can’t test every piece of every application and we do run into some interesting challenges when we focus on a worldwide audience. Many applications depend on location specific information (meaning if you aren’t testing the application in that location – you aren’t likely to have the information needed). Examples include Brazilian citizen’s CPF ID, or Brazilian personal number of identification which would be required to test something like tax preparation software. We run into similar problems with SMS applications requiring active local mobile phone accounts.

What it means to Rescue an Application

Along with the core tenet of ensuring that any application that worked on Windows Vista also work on Windows 7 we have a stretch goal to “raise the bar” and make applications work on Windows 7 that never worked on Windows Vista. For Windows 7, we have some good news early in the development cycle. So far we have made over 30 applications that were “broken” on Vista work on Windows 7. This means that Windows 7 will have higher application compatibility than Windows Vista. We are continuing to push this number up. Below is a table of the # of applications by language that we have made to work on Windows 7 but didn’t’ work on Vista.

Language	Number of Apps Fixed	Example Applications
Arabic	1	Khalifa Cartoon Characters Creator
Chinese (Simplified)	1	Arcsoft WebCam Companion
Chinese (Traditional)	3	Asure Purchase/Sale/Stock Master 2008 Cyberlink DVD Suite v6 Asure Accounting Master 2008
Czech	1	J.K.R. BYZNYS
Danish	1	Bogskabet 3.2
German	2	QuickTime 7.1.6 Haufe Personal Office Professional - Haufe Formular-Manager
Hebrew	3	Compedia Timmy in English World Compedia Moomins: The Search for the Ruby Compedia The Puzzling Time Quest
Hungarian	1	Infocentrum Road Register
Italian	5	Finson Costo del Lavoro Italian v2 Finson Falco 6 Finson Progetto Condominio Finson Contintasca 7 Finson ContinBanca
Japanese	5	PostPet v3 Kenchako Adventure 9.0 WZ Editor 5.0 QuickTime 7.1.6 Overland LOKI: with Japanese Manual
Norwegian	1	Visma Avendo Fakturering
Polish	2	WF-Fakturka dla Windows Nahlik eTeacher 5
Portugese	1	Mr. Escola Win Port
Spanish	3	Mexico Federal Taxes Simplified SAT: Individual Taxes Monografias Spanglish IKEA Home Kitchen Planner
Turkish	1	MYTR Filter 2.6

Along with ensuring these applications work on Windows 7 we have taken an extra step for our existing Vista customers. Of the applications outlined in the above table, 27 of the fixes we made have been back ported to Windows Vista for possible inclusion in future updates. We really wanted to raise the bar for application compatibility and go beyond just looking at Vista as the baseline.

Takeaway

There is a lot of information here and hopefully gives you some insight into what it means for us to make the application experience (application compatibility) on Windows 7 as high as possible for users around the world. We started out with a goal of making sure if an application worked on Windows Vista it should work on Windows 7. We have taken that further by bringing applications that never worked on Vista to work on Windows 7 and even future updates to Vista.

Application Compatibility Testing -- Overview

e7blog — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:00:00 GMT

Delivering a new release of Windows includes a major effort to insure that applications continue to function as well on the new release as they have on the previous release. At the PDC we talked about some of the new areas of Windows Vista that reduced this level of compatibility, such as changes we made around the OS security model. With Windows 7 we renewed our engineering efforts to maintain compatibility. As with device testing, compatibility testing is an effort that spans the entire engineering organization, though we also have a group that is dedicated to this effort. This post was authored by a set of folks and coordinated by Grant George, the corporate vice president for testing in the Windows Experience team. --Steven

We have taken a very proactive approach to Application Compatibility and our process starts from the moment we first plan our product schedule and design and check in code for Windows and runs through all of our engineering processes and disciplines leading up to our final release (and beyond).

Application Compatibility Goals for Windows 7

Our main Application Compatibility goal for Windows 7 is to make sure that most all applications which work on Windows Vista will continue to work seamlessly on Windows 7. We do have to be careful about making this claim to be universal because there is a class of applications that are always updated in tandem with a new Windows release. These applications are primarily system utilities, diagnostics, and security software—the common thread is that they make assumptions about the underlying implementation of Windows internals and thus require updates. We carefully coordinate with a large set of ISVs who provide these applications. This was talked about earlier this month as we announced our Ecosystem Readiness Program, which we will discuss more below.

At the start of our product cycle we review our new features and changed designs to ensure that every element of Windows 7 has Application Compatibility in mind. Our engineering process includes automated quality checks to assure public APIs don’t change, and our test engineers have the right tools, engineering time and information that is used to find application issues as early as possible in our development cycle. Telemetry information is collected to assess and prioritize the breadth of applications our users depend on, paired with market data and install base information, across a wide variety of software categories to make sure they work as expected in our new OS version.

Below we expand on how we deliver on this goal.

Engineering Application Compatibility

Rich telemetry from external usage and the broad software marketplace helps us to provide a list of the most popular and critical applications, updated frequently throughout our development cycle. Our engineers then acquire these applications and build automated tests that verify each one works as expected on Windows 7.

Changes that could impact application compatibility are followed up closely, for example Legacy Code Removal which involves removing code that existed in the previous release of the product is strictly guarded and tightly managed and should not happen without proper documentation and engagement with the impacted parties. For example if we need to deprecate an API call, the documentation for this API will be updated and we will wait until the impact of the removal is minimal as indicated by telemetry data unless it is required sooner to fix a security issue.

Throughout the development process we are running tests in the background creating an ongoing validation of new code relative to application compatibility. As code is getting ready to be checked into the main build, if a compatibility failure is detected in an automated regression test the checkin is halted. At that point the code is scanned for known compatibility issues and if an issue is detected the developer is asked to fix the problem. Of course we also develop new tests throughout the course of developing Windows 7 in order to broaden our coverage of third party software.

Engineering & Testing Strategy

We have several teams dedicated to application compatibility as part of the Windows development effort. These teams provides guidance on how to build in application compatibility, provides data on application dependencies, and information on what applications may be impacted for any particular change we make in the Windows platform. These teams also reviews new feature designs, as well as other planned changes, to ensure that the engineering team has fully taken application compatibility into account so that we achieve the tenet of "keeping applications working on Windows 7".

In addition to working with the internal Windows engineering teams, we also reach out to 3rd party developers writing Windows applications to ensure these partners have all the information they need to make their solutions fully compatible with Windows Vista and Windows 7. Furthermore if we do uncover any issues that may need to be resolved by the 3rd party developers, we collect all the information, resources and guidance and engage in a conversation with those external developers to help them understand and fix these issues.

We recently announced the Windows 7 Ecosystem Readiness Program. This program provides partners with access to Windows 7 builds and tools they need to test solutions for Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2. The Ecosystem Readiness Program also facilitates testing multiple components of the ecosystem together to improve the overall user experience. Rather than just focusing on getting a specific OEM product, software application, or hardware device certified, we will be bringing multiple components together to verify a rich user experience that delivers quality, reliability, and performance as well as innovation through new feature adoption.

As mentioned earlier we use telemetry data and market share information to choose the applications we directly test on as part of our compatibility efforts, below you can find the a sample of the Consumer Scenarios we focus our testing on:

Communications
Gaming
Fundamentals like Setup, Security and Performance
Memories
Music
Productivity
TV/Movies
Data Backup/Security
Mobility
Financial Management

To view a full list of Application Categories covered please take a look at the Appendix section at the end of this post. While we would love to provide the detailed list of products, several of the sources of this information are based on proprietary research from third parties.

Another very important set of technologies we test on are the middle tier technologies like Java, the .Net Framework, etc. to make sure the applications that use these technologies continue working as expected

In addition to 3^rd party stand alone applications we test a subset of OEM pre-installed software and their inbox applications for compatibility. The software tested come from the engagements we have with our OEM partners and their submitted installation images. These images are tested on clean installations of Windows 7 and upgrades from Windows Vista on OPEM standard hardware. This level of coverage allows us to best replicate the initial experience with Windows 7 for many of our customers. Because many of these applications are closely aligned with the OS, hardware and drivers, it is not unusual for an OEM to provide updates to this software with a new OS release.

In addition to the above mentioned testing approaches, Microsoft IT maintains a software portfolio of approximately 1,500 applications. These applications must be tested prior to software deployments inside Microsoft.

Microsoft IT developed an application-tracking method that simplified the process of selecting applications for sample-based testing. By identifying groups of applications that have similar data processing, controls, underlying technology, and methods, Microsoft IT is able to test approximately 4 to 6 percent of the total applications and gain a reasonable assurance of compatibility for all.

For more information you can read the LOB Application Compatibility Technical White Paper.

Validation Strategy

Part of our testing process includes the creation of scenarios that we validate on 3^rd party applications. We approach this by verifying the intended functionality of the application while focusing some of our attention to changes in the OS, new functionality and risky integration areas. Manual and automated test passes are scheduled to cover the identified scenarios and to verify the user experience. We cover the applications on different sets of hardware and make sure that that we cover a lot of different configurations, x86, x64, Intel, AMD, touch and multi -touch machines, etc.

We use specific categories when measuring the compatibility of the applications we test on:

Excellent - No compatibility problems
Poor - Minor functionality is not working
Failure (regression) - It used to work in Windows Vista now it is not working properly
Failures (non-regression) - The application does not work on Windows 7 but it did not work on Windows Vista either
Accepted Regression - We know of changes in the OS that may affect the applications and we have/are working with ISVs on mitigations for these issues. A simple example is version number. An application that is hard coded to only work on specific versions and it doesn’t know what our new operating system version is would fail.

We will cover these categories in more detail in subsequent blog posts about how we manage application compatibility.

As part of our testing we do find issues that may need to be resolved by the 3^rd party developers at the companies that develop and sell these applications. We collect all of the relevant technical information, resources and guidance and engage in a conversation with those external partners to help them fix the issues. Of course we also engage them in our technical beta programs so they can test Windows 7 compatibility with their products at the same time we do.

Final Word

Application compatibility is very important to the Windows team. We are constantly working to improve your experience with applications as you move from one release of Windows to the next. We encourage you to try our Windows 7 beta release to experience the improvements in the application compatibility space and we want to hear your feedback.

It is worth mentioning the work we have done from an end-user perspective to assist in application compatibility. Many failures of application compatibility happen at install time and to assist with this, in Windows 7 we have improved the detection of failed installations and provided a step by step wizard which will help to get an application’s “compatibility mode” correctly set. We also provide real-time problem reports and solutions that can help you locate an updated version or patch. Many of you might have experienced this when trying to run Skype after an upgrade or install the current version, and in both cases you were automatically referred to the Beta download site.

Appendix

Microsoft Covered Consumer Scenarios & Application Categories

Our list includes the top 50% best selling applications in the past 24 months, some of this data is collected and aggregated from several well-known third party research information providers.

Primer on Device Support and Testing for Windows 7

e7blog — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:00:00 GMT

As most folks (finally) get the beta and start to set aside some time to install and try out Windows 7, we thought it would be a good idea to start to talk about how we support devices through testing and work across the PC ecosystem. This is a big undertaking and one that we take very seriously. As we talked about at the PDC, this is also an area where we learned some things which we want to apply to Engineering Windows 7. While this is a massive effort across the entire Windows organization, Grant George, the VP of Test for the Windows Experience, is taking the lead in authoring this post. We think this is a deep topic and I know folks want to know more so consider this a kick-off for more to come down the road. –Steven

Devices and Drivers in Windows

One of the most important responsibilities in a release of Windows is our support of, and compatibility with, all of the devices and their associated drivers that our users have. The abstraction layer in Windows to connect software and hardware is a crucial part of the operating system. That layer is surfaced through our driver model, which provides the interface for all of our partners in the multi-faceted hardware ecosystem. Windows supports a vast range of devices today – audio devices (speakers, headsets…), display devices (monitors…), print, fax and scan devices, connectivity to digital cameras, portable media devices of all shapes, sizes and functions, and more. Windows is an open platform for companies across the globe who develop and deliver these devices to the marketplace and our users – and our job is to make sure we understand that ecosystem and those choices and verify those devices and drivers work well for our customers – which includes partnering with those device providers throughout the engineering of Windows7.

Drivers provide the interface between a device and the Windows operating system – and are citizens of the WDM (Windows Driver Model). WDM was initially created as an intermediary layer of kernel mode drivers to ease the authoring of drivers for Windows. There are different types of drivers. Class drivers (which are hardware device drivers that supports an array of devices of a similar hardware class where hardware manufacturers make their products compatible with standard protocols for interaction with the operating system) and device-specific drivers (provided by the device manufacturer for a specific device and sometimes a specific version of that device) are the two most common.

Partner Support

Support for our hardware partners comes in the form of the Windows Driver Kit (WDK) and for certification, the Windows Logo Kit (WLK). The WDK enables the development of device drivers and as of Vista replaced the previous Windows Driver Development Kit (DDK). The WDK contains all of the DDK components plus Windows Driver Foundation (WDF) and the Installable File System kit (IFS). The Driver Test Manager (DTM) is another component here, but is separate from the WDK. The Windows Logo Kit (WLK) aids in certifying devices for Windows (it contains automated tests as well as a run-time framework for those tests). These tests are run and passed by our hardware vendor partners in order to use the Microsoft “Designed for Windows™” logo on devices. This certification process helps us and our hardware partners ensure a specific level of quality and compatibility for devices interacting with the Windows operating system. Hardware devices and drivers that pass the logo kits tests qualify for the Windows logo, driver distribution on Windows Update, and can be referenced in the online Windows Marketplace.

Validation and Testing

With Windows 7 we have modified driver model validation, new and legacy device testing, and driver testing. Compared to Vista, we now place much more emphasis on validating the driver platform and verifying legacy devices and their associated drivers throughout our product engineering cycle. Data based on installed base for each device represents an integral part of testing, and we gather this data from a variety of sources including the voluntary, opt-in, anonymous telemetry in addition to sources such as sales data and IHV roadmaps. We have centralized and standardized the testing mechanics of the lab approach to this area of the product in a way that yields much earlier issue/bug discovery than in past releases. We have also ramped up our efforts to communicate platform or interface changes earlier with our external hardware partners to help them ensure their test cycles align with our schedule. In addition, we draw a more robust correlation between the real-world usage data, including recent trends, and prominence of each device and the prioritization it is given in our test labs. This is especially important for new and emerging devices that will come to market right before and just after we release Windows 7 to our customers.

Another important element in bringing a high quality experience to our Windows 7 users in device and driver connectivity and capability is the staging of our overall engineering process in Windows 7. For this release all of our engineering teams have followed a well structured and staged development process. The development/coding of new features and capabilities in Windows 7 was broken out in to 3 distinct phases (milestones) with dedicated integration and stabilization time at the end of each of these three coding phases. This included ensuring our code base remained highly stable throughout the development of Windows 7 and that our device and driver test validation was a constant part of those milestones. Larry discussed this in his post as some might recall. Program Managers, Developers and Testers all worked in super close partnership throughout the coding phases. Our work with external partners – especially our device manufacturer partners – was also enhanced through early forums we provided for them to learn about the changes in Windows 7 and also work closely with us on validation. Much more focus has been put on planning and then executing - planning the work and then working the plan. Our belief is that this yields much more predictability to developing and delivering our new features in Windows 7 both from a feature content and overall schedule standpoint. We recognize that this raised the bar on how our external partners see us execute and deliver on that plan when we say we will, but we also hope it increases their confidence in how they engage with us in validating the device experience during our development and delivery of Windows 7.

Determining Which Devices to Test

Our program management team helps us drive device market share analysis. Most of their data comes from our Customer Experience Improvement Program. This gives us data on the actual hardware in use across our customer base. For example there are over 16,000 unique 4-part hardware IDs for display devices alone. Like many things, we understand that it only takes a single device not functioning well to degrade an overall Windows experience or upgrade—we definitely want to re-enforce this shared understanding.

New devices typically have a small initial user base, but the driver will often be mostly new code (or the first time a code-base has seen a new device). As the device enters the mainstream, market share grows and most manufacturers continue to develop and improve their drivers. This is where for our customers, and our own testing, it’s important to always have the latest drivers for a given device.

Over a device’s lifetime, we work closely with our external device partners and represent as faithfully as possible in our test labs, a prioritized way of ensuring old and new devices continue to work well with Windows. By paying very close attention to trends in the market place across our device classes, we can make guided decisions in the context of these areas:

Critical and mainstream devices we must support out-of-the-box
Which drivers we must make available on Windows Update
On which devices and drivers to focus our testing

Another benefit of close market tracking is creating an equivalence-based view of a device family.

Equivalence Classes

We use the notion of equivalence classes to help us define and prioritize our hardware (device) test matrix. Creating equivalence classes involves grouping things into sets based on equivalent properties across related devices. For example, imagine if we worked for a chemical company and it was our job to test a car polish additive on actual automobiles. Given a fixed test budget, we would want to maximize the number of makes and models we test our product on. We begin by analyzing the current market space so we can make the best choices for our test matrix.

Let’s say the first test car we analyze is a blue 2003 Ford Mustang. We also know that the same blue paint is used on all of Ford’s 2003 and 2004 models and is also used on all of Mazda’s 2005 models. This means our first automobile represents several entries in our table based on equivalence:

Test ID	Make	Model	Color	Year
1	Ford	Mustang	Blue	2003
2	Ford	*	Blue	2004
3	Mazda	*	Blue	2005

Now let’s look at a silver 2001 Mercedes C240. We know that Mercedes and Chrysler have a relationship and upon further investigation we find Chrysler used the same silver paint on their 2006 through 2009 models. Now our equivalence class based test matrix looks like this:

Test ID	Make	Model	Color	Year
1	Ford	Mustang	Blue	2003
2	Ford	*	Blue	2004
3	Mazda	*	Blue	2005
4	Mercedes	C240	Silver	2001
5	Chrysler	*	Silver	2006
6	Chrysler	*	Silver	2007
7	Chrysler	*	Silver	2008
8	Chrysler	*	Silver	2009

By carefully analyzing each actual automobile, we have established an equivalence relationship that we can leverage to maximize implicit test coverage. Testing one make and model is theoretically equivalent to testing many. Of course we recognize in the real world different companies might use different techniques for applying paint, as one variable, so there are subtleties that require additional information to property class attributes for testing purposes.

Testing computer devices is very similar. Even though there are thousands of different devices on the market, many of them share major components, are die-shrinks of a previous revision, or differ only in terms of memory, clock-rate, pixel count, connector, or even the type of heat sink. Take for example display devices. There are over 16,000 display devices on the market. But the equivalence view reveals that 90% of the market is represented by about 60 different GPUs. By adding a few more to a carefully constructed test matrix based on equivalence it is possible to represent over 99% of all GPUs. Driver writers also leverage equivalence by targeting drivers at a range of hardware. Driver install packages indicate devices they support via hardware IDs.

All modern computer devices are assigned a unique hardware ID based on the device vendor, type, and class. Most IDs (PCI, PC Card, USB, and IEEE 1394 devices) are assigned by the industry standards body associated with that device type.

Let’s look at the device ID of my display adapter:

PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0611&SUBSYS_C8013842&REV_A2

If I visit PCI-SIG (the standards body associated with all PCI device ID assignment) and do a search on 10DE, I’m told I this is an NVidia PCI ID. If I look further on my system in

C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore\FileRepository

I can find NVidia drivers (folders that start with nv_lh). If I open one of the driver .INF files on my machine I see this tell-tale line:

NVIDIA_G92.DEV_0611.1 = "NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT”

Further inspection of the driver .INF file tells me that the same G92 GPU is used for all of these devices:

NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS
NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700

A bit of online research reveals other interesting information: “The 8800 GT, codenamed G92, was released on October 29, 2007. The card is the first to transition to 65 nm process, and supports PCI-Express 2.0.[13] It has a single-slot cooler as opposed to the double slot cooler on the 8800 GTS and GTX, and uses less power than GTS and GTX due to its 65 nm process.” -WikiPedia

So in theory, if I was to run a test on my display adapter, there’s a good chance I’d get the same results as I would on any of these other related devices.

Driver Goals for Windows 7

One of our primary goals for Windows 7 is compatibility with all Vista certified drivers and to ensure that people have a seamless upgrade experience. This breaks down into several requirements that guide how we test:

Drivers for basic functionality are in-box (by in-box we mean available as part of the installation of Windows). This includes drivers for mainstream storage, network, input, and display devices so the OS can be installed and user can get online where, if needed, additional drivers can be acquire from Windows Update.
Drivers update and/or install with minimal end user effort.
When drivers are upgraded, there aren’t problems with the new drivers.
Drivers are reliable.

One question we are asked about quite a bit is the availability of drivers. There are three primary reasons drivers end up looking for folks: clean installation of Windows, attaching device to a new computer, wanting the updated driver. We definitely recognize that for the readers of this blog, both as enthusiasts and often the support/IT infrastructure for corporations, friends, and families, that the ability to acquire drivers and reliably update machines is something of a “hobby” we all love to hate. We all want the latest and greatest—no more and no less.

A clean installation is one we are all definitely valuing during the beta phase of Windows 7. It should be clear that a clean install, as important as it is to many of us, is not a routine/mainstream experience. Nevertheless, the combination of in-box drivers and those available via Windows Update will serve a very broad set of PCs (for example, you should see most of the drivers installed for the new Atom-based machines if you do a clean install). On the other hand, some drivers for PCs are only available from the PC maker and for a variety of reasons are not available for download from Windows Update or even the device manufacturer’s site. For example, mobile graphics drivers are generally available only from the PC maker and not from the graphics component maker—this is a decision they make because of the way these chipsets are delivered for each PC maker.

Obviously attaching an existing device to a new PC is a common occurrence. In this case you may have long ago lost the CD/DVD that came with a device and you just plug it in (because you ignored the warning saying “please run the setup program first”). Again, our goal is to provide these via Windows Update. Often IHVs have updates or significantly large downloads that for a number of reasons are not appropriate to deliver via Windows Update. In that case we can also alert you, with a link many times, to seek the driver from the vendor of the device.

Updating drivers is something we are all familiar with as we often read “get the latest driver” to address issues. We all see this particularly in the enthusiast gamer space where newer drivers also improve performance or offer more features, in addition to improving overall. The primary way to get updated drivers is generally through optional updates in Windows Update, though again many times the latest and greatest must be downloaded directly from an IHV (independent hardware vendor) site.

Our goal is clearly to make sure that drivers for the broadest set of devices are available and high quality. There are many equal partners that contribute to delivering a PC and all the associated devices and we work hard to develop a systematic way to reach the broadest set of customers with high quality software and support.

Scale of Device and Driver Testing in Windows 7

The table below provides examples of some of the explicit devices we have directly tested thus far during the development of Windows 7. This is just a sampling of that direct testing - many more devices have been directly tested that are not shown here or are covered through equivalence classing.

This information is available in many sources, such as the WHQL web site that lists all qualified devices. For the purposes of this blog we thought it would be fun to provide a list here which we think will most certainly serve as the basis for discussion.

Manufacturer	Description	Family
Altec Lansing	T515	Audio
AMD (ATI)	Radeon 9200	Display
AMD (ATI)	FireGL 3100	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon X300/X550/X1050 Series	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon 9800 Pro	Display
AMD (ATI)	FireGL V3100	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon Xpress Series	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon Xpress Series	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon Xpress 1200	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon X700 PRO	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon X1200	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon X800 CrossFire Edition	Display
AMD (ATI)	Mobility Radeon X300	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon X850 CrossFire Edition	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon X1550	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon X1950 Series	Display
AMD (ATI)	Mobility Radeon X1300	Display
AMD (ATI)	Mobility Radeon X1400	Display
AMD (ATI)	Mobility Radeon HD3200	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon HD 2600 XT	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon HD 3850	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon HD 3870	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon HD 3200	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon HD 2400	Display
AMD (ATI)	FireGL 6000	Display
AMD (ATI)	FireGL 8200	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon HD 2900 XT	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon HD 2600	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon HD 4850	Display
AMD (ATI)	Radeon HD4670	Display
AMD (ATI)	ATI Technologies, Inc. RAGE XL PCI	Display
AMD (ATI)	RADEON 7000 Series	Display
Analog Devices	AD1884	Audio
Analog Devices	AD1984	Audio
Analog Devices	AD1981	Audio
Analog Devices	ADI1986A	Audio
Analog Devices	ADI1988B	Audio
Analog Devices Inc.	ADI AC97	Audio
Apple	iPhone headset	Audio
Apple	iSight 640x480 Firewire	VidCap
Archos	Archos605(WiFi)	Portable Device
ATI	ATI HDMI	Audio
BlueAnt	X5 Stereo BT Headset	Audio
Brother	HL-5140	Print / Scan
Brother	HL-2070	Print / Scan
Brother	MFC-8440	Print / Scan
Brother	MFC-5840c	Print / Scan
Brother	HL-5150	Print / Scan
Brother	MFC-8840	Print / Scan
Brother	HL-6050D	Print / Scan
Brother	IntelliFax-5750e	Print / Scan
Brother	IntelliFax-5750	Print / Scan
Canon	Canon A720IS	Portable Device
Canon	Digital Rebel XT	Portable Device
Canon	A420\410	Portable Device
Canon	SD430	Portable Device
Canon	Pixma MP140	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP1800	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP1700	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP2500	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP210	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP160	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP1500	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP1600	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP4200	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP3500	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP4500	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP180	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP2000	Print / Scan
Canon	i475D	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP150	Print / Scan
Canon	i250	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP520	Print / Scan
Canon	S450	Print / Scan
Canon	MultiPass MP390	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP500	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MX300	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP1000	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP610	Print / Scan
Canon	MultiPass MP190	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP6210D	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP5200	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP3300	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP3000	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP510	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP90	Print / Scan
Canon	i350	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP6600D	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP830	Print / Scan
Canon	BJC-6000	Print / Scan
Canon	i550	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP170	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP460	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP600	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP4300	Print / Scan
Canon	i860	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP110	Print / Scan
Canon	i320	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP6220D	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP130	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP6310D	Print / Scan
Canon	i960/i965	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP950	Print / Scan
Canon	Selphy Series	Print / Scan
Canon	i560	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP8500	Print / Scan
Canon	MultiPass MP370	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP4000	Print / Scan
Canon	i9900	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iX4000	Print / Scan
Canon	i865	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma mini260	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iX5000	Print / Scan
Canon	i850	Print / Scan
Canon	S530D	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP800R	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP5200R	Print / Scan
Canon	i470D Photo Printer	Print / Scan
Canon	S600	Print / Scan
Canon	BJC-85	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP6000	Print / Scan
Canon	S9000	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP750	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP780	Print / Scan
Canon	S630	Print / Scan
Canon	MultiPass MP1000	Print / Scan
Canon	S520	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma MP810	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP5000	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP6700D	Print / Scan
Canon	Pixma iP80	Print / Scan
Canon	SD600	Portable Device
Canon Inc.	PowerShot A720 IS	Portable Device
CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.	EX-Z1200	Portable Device
Chrontel	Chrontel HDMI	Audio
Conexant	Venice	Audio
Creative	MP3+ (SB0270)	Audio
Creative	Xmod	Audio
Creative	Live! Cam Optia AF	VidCap
Creative	WebCam Live! USB	VidCap
Creative	Webcam NoteBook 640x480 USB	VidCap
Creative	WebCam Instant 352x288 USB	VidCap
Creative	WebCam NX Pro 640x480 USB	VidCap
Creative	WEBCAM NX	VidCap
Creative	Live! Cam Notebook Pro 640K USB 2.0	VidCap
Creative	Live! Cam Video IM Pro VGA USB 2.0	VidCap
Creative	Webcam Live Ultra 640x480 USB 2.0 Manual Focus Ring	VidCap
Creative Labs, Inc.	Live! Series	Audio
Creative Labs, Inc.	Audigy Series	Audio
Creative Labs, Inc.	X-Fi Series	Audio
Creative Technology Ltd	Nano Plus	Portable Device
Creative Technology Ltd	NOMAD MuVo TX	Portable Device
Creative Technology Ltd	Zen Vision M	Portable Device
Creative Technology Ltd	Vision W	Portable Device
Creative Technology Ltd	Sleek	Portable Device
Creative Technology Ltd	PMC v2	Portable Device
Dell	Axim X51v	Portable Device
Dell	AiO 810	Print / Scan
Dell	A924	Print / Scan
Dell	J740	Print / Scan
Dell	1600n	Print / Scan
Dell	A922	Print / Scan
Dell	A940	Print / Scan
Dell	LP 1720dn	Print / Scan
Dell	3100cn	Print / Scan
Dell	W5300N	Print / Scan
Denon	S-52	Media Sharing
Dixim	media server	Media Sharing
Dlink	DSM-210	Media Sharing
Dlink	DSM - 520	Media Sharing
Dlink	DSM - 510	Media Sharing
Drobo	Drobo NAS	Media Sharing
Epson	Stylus Color C88+	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Color C84/C85	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Color C86/C87	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Color C64	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Photo R265	Print / Scan
Epson	LQ-570/670	Print / Scan
Epson	FX-880	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Photo R220	Print / Scan
Epson	LQ-300	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Photo R320	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus CX6600/6500/6900	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus CX5400	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Photo 1270	Print / Scan
Epson	LQ-1070+	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Photo R200	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Photo 1280/1290	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Color 900/N	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Color C62	Print / Scan
Epson	ActionPrinter 5000+	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Photo 820	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Color 660	Print / Scan
Epson	Stylus Color 640	Print / Scan
Epson	AcuLaser 2600N	Print / Scan
Epson	FX-2170	Print / Scan
Epson	FX-2190	Print / Scan
FujiFilm	F30	Portable Device
General Electric	EasyCam USB PC Camera 640x480	VidCap
GN\Jabra	GN9330	Audio
GN\Jabra	GN9350	Audio
GN\Jabra	GN2000USB	Audio
HP	HD TV	Media Sharing
HP	Photosmart R717	Portable Device
HP	Deskjet D1400 series	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet F380	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet F4100	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 1018	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 1020	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart C3180	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet D2400 Series	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet P2015	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet K550	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 1410	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet F2100 series	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 1315	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 5440	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 2600	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 5700	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 1510	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart C4200	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 5150	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 930C/935C	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 5940	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart C4180	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet D2330	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 1022	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 3745	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 5550	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart C5200	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 5610	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet D2360	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 3900 Series	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart C5180	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 5740	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet D4200 Series	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 6122	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 950C	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 940C	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 1610	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart D5160	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 6200 Series	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 3845	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 3650	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 2355	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 6300 Series	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet P2014	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 1300	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet Pro L7500	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet Pro L7600	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 1350	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 9800	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart 2575	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 450ci	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 4215	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 1160	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 5650	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 7400 Series	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 3740	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 5510 Series	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart 3210	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 7300 Series	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart 7850	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 832C	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 1220C	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 3030 MFP	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart A616	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 3055	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 720C	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart 7260	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 3320	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 970C	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart A440	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 695C/697C	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart A516	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 6540	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 6940	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 2510	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 6100 Series	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 6840	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart A430	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart 7450	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 812C/815C	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart 375	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet V40 Series	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 840/843/845	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart D7400 Series	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 950 Series	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet G Series	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 1015	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart 7960	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 895C	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart 8450	Print / Scan
HP	Photosmart Pro B8350	Print / Scan
HP	Deskjet 1180c	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 4345 MFP	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 4250	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet P3005	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 5200	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 4350n	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 4700	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 2300	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 4000	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 5550	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 3800	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 4050	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 3600	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 9050	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 2100	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 4240	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 2200	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 3000	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 4100	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 5000	Print / Scan
HP	Business Inkjet 1200D	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 4550	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 4600	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet CP4005	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 3700	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 3500	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 9000 MFP	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 4 Plus	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet III	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 6MP	Print / Scan
HP	Color LaserJet 1500L	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 1315	Print / Scan
HP	Officejet 5610	Print / Scan
HP	PSC 1350	Print / Scan
HP	LaserJet 4345 MFP	Print / Scan
HTC	TyTN II	Portable Device
IDT	STAC9220(9223)7680	Audio
IDT	STAC9220(9223)7681	Audio
IDT	STAC9227X(D)7618	Audio
IDT	STAC9227X(D)7619	Audio
IDT	STAC9225(Sony)7662	Audio
IDT	STAC9225(Sony)7664	Audio
IDT	STAC9225(Sony)7661	Audio
IDT	STAC9200	Audio
IDT	STAC9228	Audio
IDT	STAC9205	Audio
IDT	STAC9250	Audio
Insignia	NS-BTHDP	Audio
Insignia	NS-DV4G	Portable Device
Insignia	NS-DA2G	Portable Device
Intel	Intel HDMI	Audio
Intel	i965GX/G35	Display
Intel	G3x	Display
Intel	i4G	Display
Intel	i45GM	Display
Intel	i915GM	Display
Intel	i915G	Display
Intel	i945G	Display
Intel	i945GM	Display
Intel	Q3x	Display
Intel	i965G	Display
Intel	i965GM	Display
Iriver	ClixGen2	Portable Device
Iriver	IriverClix2_FWv1.14	Portable Device
Iriver	U10 Series	Portable Device
Iriver	Clix	Portable Device
Jabra	BT620S	Audio
Jabra	BT8010	Audio
Jabra	BT3030	Audio
Jasco	Minicam Pro	VidCap
Kodak	Easyshare LS420	Portable Device
Konica Minolta	magicolor 5450	Print / Scan
Kyocera Mita	FS-6900	Print / Scan
LABTEC	LABTEC WEBCAM PRO 961358	VidCap
LABTEC	Web Cam Plus 352x288 USB 2.0 Manual Focus Motion Detection	VidCap
Lexmark	Z845	Print / Scan
Lexmark	Z1300	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X2550	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X1270	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X2470	Print / Scan
Lexmark	Z735	Print / Scan
Lexmark	E120n	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X3550	Print / Scan
Lexmark	Z715	Print / Scan
Lexmark	Z42 Color JetPrinter	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X5470	Print / Scan
Lexmark	Z816	Print / Scan
Lexmark	Z615	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X2250	Print / Scan
Lexmark	P915	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X7170	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X4550	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X6170	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X6150	Print / Scan
Lexmark	E232	Print / Scan
Lexmark	2490	Print / Scan
Lexmark	P3150	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X5150	Print / Scan
Lexmark	E323	Print / Scan
Lexmark	P315	Print / Scan
Lexmark	Z25 Color JetPrinter	Print / Scan
Lexmark	2491	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X215	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X4250	Print / Scan
Lexmark	E321	Print / Scan
Lexmark	Z45 Color JetPrinter	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X83	Print / Scan
Lexmark	C524	Print / Scan
Lexmark	E450D	Print / Scan
Lexmark	T640	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X634	Print / Scan
Lexmark	W840	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X632	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X620	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X630	Print / Scan
Lexmark	T642	Print / Scan
Lexmark	W812	Print / Scan
Lexmark	X1270	Print / Scan
LG	HBS-200	Audio
Logitech	QuickCam Pro 9000	Audio
Logitech	QuickCam Pro 9000	VidCap
Logitech	Quickcam Communicate STX VGA Fixed Focus USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Chat VGA w/Image Capture USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	961400-0403 QuickCam Notebook Deluxe 1.3MP MF USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Pro 4000 640x480 USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Pro 5000 640x480 USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	Quickcam Vision Pro1	VidCap
Logitech	Quickcam Vision Pro2	VidCap
Logitech	961403 QuickCam Fusion 1.3MP USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Messenger 640x480 USB	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Messenger Refresh 640x480 USB	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Notebooks Pro 1.3MP USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Zoom 640x480 USB	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Communicate 640x480 USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Orbit MP 1.3MP USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	QUICKCAMFORNB	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam Orbit 640x480 USB 2.0	VidCap
Logitech	QuickCam for Notebooks Pro	VidCap
Lubix	UBHS-LC1	Audio
Matrox	M9120	Display
Microsoft	NX-3000	Audio
Microsoft	VX-7000	Audio
Microsoft	NX-6000	Audio
Microsoft	VX-6000	Audio
Microsoft	VX-3000	Audio
Microsoft	VX-1000	Audio
Microsoft	LX-3000	Audio
Microsoft	ZX-6000	Audio
Microsoft	Mic Array	Audio
Microsoft	XBox 360	Media Sharing
Microsoft	LifeCam VX-1000 VGA USB 2.0	VidCap
Microsoft	Lifecam NX-6000	VidCap
Microsoft	LifeCam VX-6000 1.3MP USB 2.0	VidCap
Microsoft	LifeCam VX-3000 1.3MP USB 2.0	VidCap
Microsoft	Xbox Live Vision (Xbox 360)	VidCap
Microsoft	Lifecam VX-7000	VidCap
Microsoft	Lifecam NX-3000	VidCap
Momento	Wireless Picture Frame	Media Sharing
Motorola	S9	Audio
Motorola	HT820	Audio
Motorola	H670	Audio
Motorola	HS850	Audio
Motorola	H500	Audio
Motorola	DJ S805	Audio
NEC	UTR-UC-1	Audio
Nero8 Home Media	media server	Media Sharing
Nikon	CoolPix S1	Portable Device
Nokia	BH800	Audio
Nokia	N95	Media Sharing
Nokia	N95	Portable Device
Nokia	5300	Portable Device
nVidia	nVidia HDMI	Audio
Nvidia	GeForce 7600GT	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 7800GT	Display
Nvidia	Geforce 8200	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 7400 Go	Display
Nvidia	Geforce 7950 GX2	Display
Nvidia	Geforce 8800GTS	Display
Nvidia	Geforce 8800GTX	Display
Nvidia	Geforce 8400 GS	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 8400M GS	Display
Nvidia	Geforce 8600 GT	Display
Nvidia	Quador NVS 130m	Display
Nvidia	Quadro 570	Display
Nvidia	Quadro 570m	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 9600 GT	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 8800 GT	Display
Nvidia	Geforce 8400GS (G98)	Display
Nvidia	Geforce 9800 X2	Display
Nvidia	Geforce GTX 260	Display
Nvidia	GeForce4 MX 420	Display
Nvidia	GeForce FX 5200	Display
Nvidia	Geforce FX 5900	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 6150	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 6100	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 6200	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 7050	Display
Nvidia	GeForce 6800	Display
Nvidia	GeForce Go 6150	Display
Oki	Microline 320/Turbo	Print / Scan
Oki	Microline 184 Turbo	Print / Scan
Oki	Microline 391/Turbo	Print / Scan
Oki	Microline 321/Turbo	Print / Scan
Oki	Microline 590	Print / Scan
Panasonic	KX-P2130	Print / Scan
Panasonic	KX-P2023	Print / Scan
Parrot	Boombox	Audio
Philips	Stereo Mic	Audio
Philips	GoGear 30GB	Portable Device
Plantronics	Pulsar 590A/E	Audio
Plantronics	Pulsar 260	Audio
Plantronics	Discovery 655 or 665	Audio
Plantronics	SupraPluc DA45	Audio
Polycom	CX400	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 262 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 268 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 660 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 862 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 883 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 888 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 885 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 882 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 861 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek	Realtek 662 HD Audio codec	Audio
Realtek Semiconductor Corp	Realtek AC97	Audio
Rhapsody	music Jukebox	Media Sharing
RIO	Rio Carbon	Portable Device
Roku	Radio Soundbridge	Media Sharing
Roku	SoundbridgeM1000	Media Sharing
S3	GammaChrome G700	Display
S3	GammaChrome G700	Display
S3	S3 Graphics Chrome 440/430 Series	Display
S3	S3 Graphics Chrome 440/430 Series	Display
Samsung	WEP-210	Audio
Samsung	YP-Z5	Portable Device
Samsung	ML-1610	Print / Scan
Samsung	SF-5100	Print / Scan
Samsung	ML-1710	Print / Scan
SanDisk Corporation	Sansa E260	Portable Device
SanDisk Corporation	Sansa View Mp3 Player	Portable Device
SanDisk Corporation	Sansa m250	Portable Device
SI	1392 HDMI	Audio
SigmaTel, Inc.	Sigmatel AC97	Audio
SiS	Xabre	Display
SiS	Mirage3	Display
Sonos	Zone player ZP80	Media Sharing
Sony	DR-BT22	Audio
Sony	PS3	Media Sharing
Sony	DSC-T200	Portable Device
Sony Corporation	WALKMAN NWZ-A816	Portable Device
Sony Ericsson	W910i	Portable Device
Toshiba	Gigabeat	Portable Device
Toshiba	Gigabeat V2 PMC	Portable Device
Turtle Beach	Audio Advantage Micro	Audio
Tversity Inc	media server	Media Sharing
Twonky Media	media server	Media Sharing
Via	DeltaChrome G700	Display
Western Digital	External harddrive	Media Sharing
Xerox	Phaser 6120	Print / Scan
Xerox	Phaser 4510	Print / Scan